Talk:Charis Johnson

Untitled
This is pretty recent, perhaps it would be best if it was one wikinews. We can wait and see if this person is noteable. Will anyone care about Charis Johnson in 100 years? Jon513 22:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but nobody will care about most of the sportspeople and actors who have articles either. 218.102.71.167 17:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Or all the Star Trek crap that exists on Wikipedia. It blows me away how people get all self-righteous about what belongs or doesn't belong on Wikipedia, when there are ALWAYS hundreds of less relevant articles on it than the on that is being criticized.

Surely more is better than less? This is linked to from other pages and is useful in finding out about the traffic exchange business. I found it useful and informative. 172.201.137.112 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * More being better than less just means any person or character that anyone can imagine should be an article. From what I can tell, this article is pure news cruft.  This case didn't make the news across the nation, let alone the world, and appears to be a non-issue now.  If we keep the article, are we supposed to find out what the subject is doing now with her life and fill in the new sections and new stuff unfolds? Krb3141 (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Krb3141 (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krb3141 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

People are always interested when there is a lot of money involved in my opinion. I know this page isn't for everyone, but anything in the millions of dollars range surely means notability is not really an issue... the articles quite high quality anyway 90.204.167.175 (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How Much?
So is it $1.9 million or $500 million? &#39;bitchen&#39; ric 18:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that $1.9 million is what she had removed from the program; $500 million is what the auditor found had been "invested" in 12daily Pro.Ponzi Nemesis 17:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)